I'm guessing you called a * discuss because you're wondering if the nudity would make this fall into the porn category. IMO, a little bit of nudity does not automatically make something porn. So if you're wondering what I think, this is not porn whatsoever.

Yeah well, farhad has to work on funny, after all, he's ducked in and out here since the rabble took over, stroking himself as he leaves his trail, a legacy dying or dead on the vine-same sort of contempt for the clueless we both share, though we express it in ways that juxtapose beyond your pathetic mortal brains fathomabilities, on a good day, with pussy(or cocks, respectfully, for you gay motherfuckers) in your faces and autism as your motors.

For the cheap seats-It's porn, It's not porn. It's art, It's not art. It sucks, it blows, it's racy, it's tame, it's up to the admins ultimately to decide that they know how to form sentences and convey meaning, 69 percent of the time.

Uhhhh, Luuuuucky....dag??
"May I post video's from pornbumper here, cause, like, you know, girls with black cocks shove up their pink cooters turns me on and it's art....Oh and, gingers fondling their titties in a tasteful way is ok for television in Japan, and I was wondering, can i show my inverted asshole with a macro camera so that It looks like a baby being born as long as no one notices that it's my inflamed hemorrhoids after a round of scotch bonnet marmelase??? Huuh?? Ok???!"

May I have this girl's parent's phone number so I can tell them she's on Videosift embroiled in a bullshit diversive meaningless controversy that makes people think about just what rules mean in a world without them?? Hmmmmmmm??!!

I could give a fiddlers fuck that this is siftworthy or not.Farhad already knows the bee he stashed in the collective bonnet, he's sitting back watching the fun right now....cause his girlfriend freaked out on him and he has access to good drugs now....awwww....that's so sweeeeeet!

Religion is a drug that atheists get a contact high from.
Politics are a way for the developmentally disabled to pretend that they are having conversations that have an impact on the world they inhabit, and bacon....well, bacon should be taught in Muslim schools as Allah's manna he sent to confuse dumb motherfuckers who think that eating it everyday causes problems.

I get it. It's not porn when there is not a snowflake's chance in hell any one of our sorry asses could ever dream to score with one of the presented girls. Take note Brain. Your girls are just too accessible.

I would have said not porn until 2:58, but that's pretty graphic. It's certainly skating the lines.

dag, since this is really your rule and since what is and isn't porn varies from person to person, you're ultimately going to have to define this. Here's some suggested language, though.

- Graphic depictions of human masturbation are not allowed.
- Graphic depictions of human sexual intercourse are not allowed.
- Frontal nudity should be limited to comedic, artistic or educational context.

I'd avoid using the word "titillation" since we've got plenty of stuff that could be titillating but is clearly not porn.

Not porn, porn, not porn, porn, How about timing??...Ever take that into account, y'know, decide whether or not a joke is funny anymore, and decide to, for the sake of one's own dignity to keep the crowd coming back for more rather than give their friends an honest account of how tired the act was. Battin' a thousand there guys....seems to me you folks are sullied on the whole place.....Sound familiar??

Heh, fair enough. I didn't mean to be patronizing.. it just came so naturally.

Well, I think I almost completely agree in that definition. There's plenty of other content that intends to arouse the viewer without actually being porn though, a reading of an erotic novel, commercials (usually beer commercials) and such all intends to arouse the view, but should not be considered porn either.

To be pornography, it should contain two things: 1) the intention to arouse the viewer 2) actual sexual content.

A woman suggestively eating a banana isn't porn. Elderly (or younger) women sitting in a circle masturbating is certainly skating the borders of it, even it it's framed as if not to arouse - but instead be hilarious. It's all a big gray area. I'm not certain dag and lucky actually meant pornography when they wrote it in the faq though, it's basically just to keep sexually explicit content to a minimum (I think). And this is certainly pretty explicit.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
Hey, you played the patronising card first. Golden rule.

It cannot be just "explicit genitalia" that dag is concerned with (isn't there a testicular self-exam guide video here? and I know I've seen other clips with genitalia) - it seems to be the fact that since it's in the context of sex it's scaring advertisers. Such a ruling I have no grudge with, if it's because it's scaring off advertisers that are (depressingly) necessary to keep the site afloat.

But that is entirely separate from what I actually care about. The video is NOT pornography. It was not made to sexually arouse the viewer.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I do get what you're saying about 'porn' as in commercials and other videos that sell themselves with sex (or arousal) as the main selling point. I think there's a difference between those and the video in question though. Innuendo and hints are different than explicit genitalia on screen. I have nothing against it as such and for all I care it should stay, but there is a difference I think. None-the-less, as you said yourself, dag's trump card trumps the rest.

I was pissed back when my squirting orgasm video was discarded, but I understand why it was discarded and in the end I'm OK with that. Bills gotta be payed and since we'd never use the site if it was pay-per-view, ads will have to do and then the site owners have to appease them at least a bit. I'm all for taking a moral standpoint against censorship or womens' rights or what have you, but I just don't care enough about this video to grab my pitchfork just yet. If it had been guys sitting around jacking it, I'm pretty sure the discussion would not be so loud and roaring and it would just have been discarded as porn. (That's a separate issue though.)

"Just forget it"? There's no need to patronize me. I don't care for it and it still doesn't suit you.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
'porn', gwiz, not porn. just forget it.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:

But @berticus, if there's so much porn already, please present it. You can't just claim that there is and expect us to just accept that as fact. And self-righteousness does not become you (or anyone), please tone it down lest you become the ghost of MINK past.

Hey, you played the patronising card first. Golden rule.

It cannot be just "explicit genitalia" that dag is concerned with (isn't there a testicular self-exam guide video here? and I know I've seen other clips with genitalia) - it seems to be the fact that since it's in the context of sex it's scaring advertisers. Such a ruling I have no grudge with, if it's because it's scaring off advertisers that are (depressingly) necessary to keep the site afloat.

But that is entirely separate from what I actually care about. The video is NOT pornography. It was not made to sexually arouse the viewer.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I do get what you're saying about 'porn' as in commercials and other videos that sell themselves with sex (or arousal) as the main selling point. I think there's a difference between those and the video in question though. Innuendo and hints are different than explicit genitalia on screen. I have nothing against it as such and for all I care it should stay, but there is a difference I think. None-the-less, as you said yourself, dag's trump card trumps the rest.

I was pissed back when my squirting orgasm video was discarded, but I understand why it was discarded and in the end I'm OK with that. Bills gotta be payed and since we'd never use the site if it was pay-per-view, ads will have to do and then the site owners have to appease them at least a bit. I'm all for taking a moral standpoint against censorship or womens' rights or what have you, but I just don't care enough about this video to grab my pitchfork just yet. If it had been guys sitting around jacking it, I'm pretty sure the discussion would not be so loud and roaring and it would just have been discarded as porn. (That's a separate issue though.)

"Just forget it"? There's no need to patronize me. I don't care for it and it still doesn't suit you.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
'porn', gwiz, not porn. just forget it.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:

But @berticus, if there's so much porn already, please present it. You can't just claim that there is and expect us to just accept that as fact. And self-righteousness does not become you (or anyone), please tone it down lest you become the ghost of MINK past.

I do get what you're saying about 'porn' as in commercials and other videos that sell themselves with sex (or arousal) as the main selling point. I think there's a difference between those and the video in question though. Innuendo and hints are different than explicit genitalia on screen. I have nothing against it as such and for all I care it should stay, but there is a difference I think. None-the-less, as you said yourself, dag's trump card trumps the rest.

I was pissed back when my squirting orgasm video was discarded, but I understand why it was discarded and in the end I'm OK with that. Bills gotta be payed and since we'd never use the site if it was pay-per-view, ads will have to do and then the site owners have to appease them at least a bit. I'm all for taking a moral standpoint against censorship or womens' rights or what have you, but I just don't care enough about this video to grab my pitchfork just yet. If it had been guys sitting around jacking it, I'm pretty sure the discussion would not be so loud and roaring and it would just have been discarded as porn. (That's a separate issue though.)

"Just forget it"? There's no need to patronize me. I don't care for it and it still doesn't suit you.

In reply to this comment by berticus:
'porn', gwiz, not porn. just forget it.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:

But @berticus, if there's so much porn already, please present it. You can't just claim that there is and expect us to just accept that as fact. And self-righteousness does not become you (or anyone), please tone it down lest you become the ghost of MINK past.

I'm a trend-setter.

In fairness to the video I posted, I'm very well aware that that one is skating the edges of porn-land, that's part of the reason I posted it. Before that I posted http://www.videosift.com/video/How-to-give-a-woman-a-squirting-orgasm-explicit (very nfsw) which eventually got discarded as porn. I think arguably both could have passed, but the latter is clearly "worse", ie. more pornographic. I think the above video is a little bit more pornographic as well. The reason the "ins and outs" video is not porn, is that it's clearly not about getting anyone off, even though it might (you pervs..).

Like snuff, the porn definition of videosift is not wholly identical with the dictionary version, and that's fine, just a bit confusing at times.

But @berticus, if there's so much porn already, please present it. You can't just claim that there is and expect us to just accept that as fact. And self-righteousness does not become you (or anyone), please tone it down lest you become the ghost of MINK past.
>> ^Shepppard:
>> ^berticus:
i'm incredibly disappointed, and torn.
on the one hand i think it's so unbelievably cool to see a video of "older" women learning to enjoy sexual experience so uninhibitedly.
on the other, the fact that it's an EIT video just shows that most people think this is something shocking or revolting and therefore relegated to humour.
i was cheering for those old girls right up until the spirity wafty nonsense at the end.
but worst of all is reading the comments here, save for pb's.
there is already a fuckton of 'porn' on this site. most of the guys here (and some ladies) vote up videos that serve no purpose other than sexual stimulation. so what is the line that separates those kept from those discarded? because it doesn't seem to be anything well defined. it just seems like the boys club gets together and grunts appreciation or not.
well fuck that.

I issue you the same challenge. Find me a piece of material that is this graphic that has been sifted.
Nothing educational, or nothing that you can see on a basic cable channel. Again, i did my own search. The worst I could find was from Gwiz, something to the tune of "Explaining the vagina" with a live subject. Everything else was either clothed, or educational (I.e. you could see the same pictures in a medical textbook.)
The content isn't there. Friday nights on cable t.v. you can see soft core porn movies, played out more artfully then porn, and the most you'll see is maybe a boob, and a couple thrusting motions.
So, go on. Find me a video of this quality. Something showing explicit sexual stimulation, leaving absolutely nothing up to the imagination.

>> ^berticus:
I don't know of one. But.. why? Is that what defines this as pornography to you, the fact that it shows stimulation of women-bits? This is an impasse, I suspect, one that I fall on the opposite side of a large wall from the majority of people here. This video is not pornography by any stretch of the imagination to me. Even the original clip, without the EIT editing, would not have been pornography. Porn to me is about intent as much as it is depiction. I don't see the intent of this clip being arousal for the viewer, it was made as an educational video for women. The fact that it's sexual education still doesn't make it porn, to me.
It's alright though, I'm used to being the odd one out here in how I perceive things.
>> ^Shepppard:
I issue you the same challenge. Find me a piece of material that is this graphic that has been sifted.


I don't see how you're taking anything away from this as "Educational". The minute we got tribal music and "O faces" we got to the point of full out sexual stimulation.

Let me put it this way. This video is about.. Women masturbating. If you were to go out and buy a hustler, most of that magazine is going to be of.. women masturbating.

Just because it may not be appealing to some doesn't mean it's not meant as a form of arousal for the viewer, the content is the same. The way I look at porn is basically as follows:

If it depicts some form of sexual act, solo, with a partner, or with multiple partners and or animals, that is porn.

If its something about describing anatomy, like a diagram, or something that is meant for educational purposes, that's not porn.

If it's about the female form, something showing the beauty of someone confident enough to pose without their clothes on, that's art.

This falls under one catagory on that list. This is not meant to be educational, and even if is, it's education about sexual arousal and stimulation. As dag said, it doesn't matter that it's a group of women. If it were a group of 6 guys around in a circle jerking one out, that'd also be porn, and inapropriate for videosift.

>> ^peggedbea:
THIS IS NOT PORN. THIS IS A PARODY VIDEO OF OLD LADIES FROM A REPRESSIVE GENERATION LIBERATING THEMSELVES IN THE MOST RIDICULOUS FASHION. AND FUCKING GOOD FOR THEM.
BRAINS APPOLOGY POST SAID IT BEST
titty babies are traumatized by vaginas that are not attached to porn stars.
the polling system is built into the site. and don't even get me started on the number of videos that got mass amounts of votes for being sexy. even if the content itself wasnt intended to strictly titillate, the reason these videos made it to the top was the male sift brain sexualizing it. there is even a video clip from an actual soft core porn vid, allowed to stay without the fuss.
and the talk of bannings, RIDICULOUS.


Sorry peggedbea, parody or not, it fits the definition-While not always universally accepted, definitions are not like assholes. Everybody does not have one....unless, perhaps, they have free-associative programs running in the background which convince the semantic mechanics otherwise. No brain, there is no polling system built into the site permitting posts containing nude women masturbating and offering up macro shots of their cooters!!
Sexy is fine, always has been, and given the amount of shut-in, socially dysfunctional WoW generation males on the site, who spell boobs with a "W" and have only ever touched their own cocks much less had any intimacy with a female of the species, I am surprised there are not more posts from these developmentally disabled.

We have issue with the "male sift brain" sexualizing anything....more like the kind of antics of a monkey who, finding his habitat trampled upon by nosy tourists, throws shit at the nearest, then dances around whooping....

no one talked of banning..... I simply hobbled the abuser, as the powers afforded the status according to the stated guidelines offered.

I would like to take this opportunity to offer the most sincere apology imaginable in this current incarnation, if I offended ANYBODY'S divine sensibilities with my actions of yesterday.

I have sat in sackcloth and ashes for most of the day now, and have begun a rigorous regimen of self-induced flagellation to attempt some transubstantial effect worthy of the forgiveness I fear may never come. In order to amend my gross and wholly negligent abuse, I have devised the most grueling of tortures to follow in order to somehow sublimate my egregious ill-will and hatred for all of humanity and gOd herself, especially the vaginas, oh so wet and smelly, pulsating this way and that....

I only hope this will be enough for me to someday be welcome into her massive benevolent vagina rebirth facility, in Detroit's seedy underbelly.

This is excruciatingly terrible, and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Not porn, though. I say keep it but ban Brain anyhow, just because.

the underage viewer viewing it is a valid point, and im curious what dags liability would be in that situation.

however, withstanding that. now that the video has been released from purgatory, i was free too and did infact downvote it, because i didn't like watching it. my whole point is that 1. the gage of offensiveness can't be measured by one person or 4 persons or their penis's. and 2. the voting system is a sufficient guideline to determine if something is siftable, which is a matter of personal preference. personally i find family guy clips viscerally offensive and wish they didn't find their way to the sift, but they do and so i downvote them. if a video hits -3, its gone.

but the talk of bannings and hobblings because a seasoned member posts a provocative video is ridiculous.
and i think i accidentally hit the wrong button and am posting this to sheppard's profile now. but oh well im not going back and redoing it. sorry sheppard.
and now ive lost my train of thought and its time go do real life things. tralalalllala
In reply to this comment by Shepppard:
>> ^peggedbea:
THIS IS NOT PORN. THIS IS A PARODY VIDEO OF OLD LADIES FROM A REPRESSIVE GENERATION LIBERATING THEMSELVES IN THE MOST RIDICULOUS FASHION. AND FUCKING GOOD FOR THEM.
BRAINS APPOLOGY POST SAID IT BEST
titty babies are traumatized by vaginas that are not attached to porn stars.
the polling system is built into the site. and don't even get me started on the number of videos that got mass amounts of votes for being sexy. even if the content itself wasnt intended to strictly titillate, the reason these videos made it to the top was the male sift brain sexualizing it. there is even a video clip from an actual soft core porn vid, allowed to stay without the fuss.
and the talk of bannings, RIDICULOUS.


Soft core is just that - soft core. It shows basically nothing but the odd breast and nothing truly graphic.

This, is not soft core. Videosift doesn't have a "You must be 18 to enter this site" page, this video embed doesn't have a "You must be 18 to view this content" link, however, if you follow the embed you have to click a "I agree that I'm 18 years old" button.

Soft core is displayed on basic cable now. This is not. This is fully graphic material, and other then a small tag of "NSFW" along the side, has nothing to even show what the content is. Right now, I believe the sift is liable if some mother gets pissed off that her kid found something of this quality on here. If there was the "I agree to be 18" button, or the video required you to input age, that would be a horse of a different colour, because that means that the child willingly knew what he was going to be seeing, and the sift has no blame.

It only takes one angry mother to lead a vendetta against something because her child is more special then the others and therefore has to be protected.

That being said, if theres an "I agree that I'm over 18" button on the front page before you can enter the site, who knows how much traffic that'll stop. I came here when I was 17, and granted, would've clicked the button anyway, but there's a lot of goody-two-shoes out there.

Maybe even if there's a system in place that makes it so you have to hit one of the "I'm over 18" buttons to view anything flagged as NSFW, or have to be logged in and have an input age when you sign up. But as it stands right now, this is not educational, this is not art. This is a bunch of women sitting around for one common goal. You want to see something of this sort? Go to a free porn site then. The sift is not one. And again, softcore clips are not as bad, they're on basic cable now. But they're still up to dags discretion.

>> ^peggedbea:
THIS IS NOT PORN. THIS IS A PARODY VIDEO OF OLD LADIES FROM A REPRESSIVE GENERATION LIBERATING THEMSELVES IN THE MOST RIDICULOUS FASHION. AND FUCKING GOOD FOR THEM.
BRAINS APPOLOGY POST SAID IT BEST
titty babies are traumatized by vaginas that are not attached to porn stars.
the polling system is built into the site. and don't even get me started on the number of videos that got mass amounts of votes for being sexy. even if the content itself wasnt intended to strictly titillate, the reason these videos made it to the top was the male sift brain sexualizing it. there is even a video clip from an actual soft core porn vid, allowed to stay without the fuss.
and the talk of bannings, RIDICULOUS.


Soft core is just that - soft core. It shows basically nothing but the odd breast and nothing truly graphic.

This, is not soft core. Videosift doesn't have a "You must be 18 to enter this site" page, this video embed doesn't have a "You must be 18 to view this content" link, however, if you follow the embed you have to click a "I agree that I'm 18 years old" button.

Soft core is displayed on basic cable now. This is not. This is fully graphic material, and other then a small tag of "NSFW" along the side, has nothing to even show what the content is. Right now, I believe the sift is liable if some mother gets pissed off that her kid found something of this quality on here. If there was the "I agree to be 18" button, or the video required you to input age, that would be a horse of a different colour, because that means that the child willingly knew what he was going to be seeing, and the sift has no blame.

It only takes one angry mother to lead a vendetta against something because her child is more special then the others and therefore has to be protected.

That being said, if theres an "I agree that I'm over 18" button on the front page before you can enter the site, who knows how much traffic that'll stop. I came here when I was 17, and granted, would've clicked the button anyway, but there's a lot of goody-two-shoes out there.

Maybe even if there's a system in place that makes it so you have to hit one of the "I'm over 18" buttons to view anything flagged as NSFW, or have to be logged in and have an input age when you sign up. But as it stands right now, this is not educational, this is not art. This is a bunch of women sitting around for one common goal. You want to see something of this sort? Go to a free porn site then. The sift is not one. And again, softcore clips are not as bad, they're on basic cable now. But they're still up to dags discretion.